Search

Our knowledge of biodiversity hinges on sufficient data, reliable methods, and realistic models. Without an accurate assessment of species distributions, we cannot effectively target and stem biodiversity loss. Species range maps are the foundation of such efforts, but countless studies have failed to account for the most basic assumptions of reliable species mapping practices, undermining the credibility of their results and potentially misleading and hindering conservation and management efforts. Here, we use examples from the recent literature and broader conservation community to highlight the substantial shortfalls in current practices and their consequences for both analyses and conservation management. We detail how different decisions on data filtering impact the outcomes of analysis and provide practical recommendations and steps for more reliable analysis, whilst understanding the limits of what available data will reliably allow and what methods are most appropriate. Whilst perfect analyses are not possible for many taxa given limited data, and biases, ensuring we use data within reasonable limits and understanding inherent assumptions is crucial to ensure appropriate use. By embracing and enacting such best practices, we can ensure both the accuracy and improved comparability of biodiversity analyses going forward, ultimately enhancing our ability to use data to facilitate our protection of the natural world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spatial patterns of biodiversity are inextricably linked to their collection methods, yet no synthesis of bias patterns or their consequences exists. As such, views of organismal distribution and the ecosystems they make up may be incorrect, undermining countless ecological and evolutionary studies. Using 742 million records of 374 900 species, we explore the global patterns and impacts of biases related to taxonomy, accessibility, ecotype and data type across terrestrial and marine systems. Pervasive sampling and observation biases exist across animals, with only 6.74% of the globe sampled, and disproportionately poor tropical sampling. High elevations and deep seas are particularly unknown. Over 50% of records in most groups account for under 2% of species and citizen‐science only exacerbates biases. Additional data will be needed to overcome many of these biases, but we must increasingly value data publication to bridge this gap and better represent species' distributions from more distant and inaccessible areas, and provide the necessary basis for conservation and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]